Renewables are great - for powering fantasies

The Dallas Morning News ^ | 3-24-02 | James Glassman

[Rubber Ducky]

Fuel cells are neat ways to burn fuel, but they do not lessen the demand for fuel.

True, but they shift the demand for fuel from petroleum based products to alternatives such as biomass.

It is also true that, presently, they are not as cost-effictive as fossil fuels. However, as the technology advances and the cost of fossil fuels (including the cost of pumping pollutants into the atmosphere, which can be transferred virtually cost free to society at large) continues to climb, you will see the gap close.

[Rubber Ducky]

Splendid post and congratualtions from a fellow conservative who also believes transportation policy should consist of something more than pouring more concrete and trading the lives of American military for cheap gas.

[Willie Green]

I make no excuses for events that occur in the People's Republik of Kalifornia.
Those people aren't bright enough to build their own power plants.
Next time they have statewide power failures, they can try to squeeze a little juice out of the dome-lights of their cars, for all I care. They're not really part of the U.S. anymore anyway. The heck with 'em.

[Willie Green]

Splendid post and congratualtions from a fellow conservative who also believes transportation policy should consist of something more than pouring more concrete and trading the lives of American military for cheap gas.

It is truely sad that barely 6 months have passed since 3000+ of our citizens were slaughtered on our own soil in a plot masterminded by a "religious" zealot funded by oil money. And our so-called "leadership" wages a global war on terrorism in order to maintain our energy dependence on these same terrorist sponsoring nations.

[Rubber Ducky]

You're damn right. My blood boils everytime someone spouts off stupidity about any alternatives to the one-person per SUV culture being socialist, UnAmerican, etc. The highway and road systems in the U.S. have never came close to being paid for by the auto users. And for those that don't want to subsidize Pedro's bus ride to work, just think that by doing so you've taken one more low-rider off the street to block your road access and break-down on the freeway, backing up traffic for miles.

[Lael]

I can only begin to list all the safety hazards of dealing with LH2.

Tell you what...let's run a few "issue ads" featuring the average soccer mom and her kids entering an SUV. Rapidly intersperse video of the HINDENBURG disaster. Then show pics of the "after" condition of the kids at WACO.

Then the voiceover about "CRISPY CRITTERS". End with "The HYDROGEN Economy...it's a BAD idea!!!

[snopercod]

Great idea, but many of the young voters of today would probably think it was a Led Zepplin music video. Cool, man!

[Wonder Warthog]

"If you try to use compressed H2 for transportation, you get gigantic, enormously heavy tanks, and even more limited range."

Go BACK to the literature and learn a bit about the work on new, super-strong composite tanks. You are half right--IF you use gaseous hydrogen for transportation (which is NOT what I said, by the way--I was talking about the hydrogen economy, which involves ALL energy usage--not just transportation.) the tanks DO need to be super-strong.

If there is a luddite, on this thread, you're it. Personally, I have more confidence in the abilities of my fellow scientists and engineers here in the US to solve these problems than you appear to.

[Wonder Warthog]

"Huh? Anytime I see folks start to talk about "MORE than 100% (electrically) efficient", "

Yes, MORE THAN 100% ELECTRICALLY EFFICIENT---NOT, PLEASE, MORE THAN 100% THERMODYNAMICALLY EFFICIENT. There IS a difference, folks, which is why I DESCRIBED THE MECHANISM in the post. Until you guys actually learn the fundamentals of thermodynamics, it is useless to try to have a discussion.

[tm22721]

Geothermal will put the towelheads out of business when we figure out how to tap magma without creating a volcano.

BUMP

[FreedomPoster]

Your original post did *not* describe the mechanism except in the most general, hand-waving sort of way. Most statements of this nature end up in violations of the 1st and 2nd Law. If that is not the case, I apologize, but as of right now, vague assertions of "more than 100% electrically efficient" due to "high temp electrolyzers" don't mean much to me, and I suspect others as well. And I'll hang with you on as much thermodynamics/heat transfer/fluid mechanics/energy system analysis (technical and economic) as you care to discuss....

Show me a system diagram and appropriate 1st Law analysis of that system, and a testbed that has done something useful, with the the slightest remote possibility of commercial scaling. And oh, yeah, it would be nice if some independant peer review were involved, and not a bunch of greenie wishing.

And BTW, you're still side-stepping the energy density issues of hydrogen for automotive use.

When folks start typing primarily all-caps when challenged about one of their statements, I find that discussion tends to head immediately far downhill. Here's hoping that's not the case here.

[boris]

"Go BACK to the literature and learn a bit about the work on new, super-strong composite tanks."

I work with those tanks on a daily basis. New and 'super-strong' and very, very costly.

So: either very heavy or very expensive. Take your choice. And remember what happened to the X-33 tank.

--Boris

[boris]

"Splendid post and congratualtions from a fellow conservative who also believes transportation policy should consist of something more than pouring more concrete and trading the lives of American military for cheap gas."

As I said above:

"The U.S. has vast supplies of coal, shale oil, and other hydrocarbons which are currently too expensive to use--or prohibited by idiotic environmental regs. Not to mention the potential of methane clathrates (methane hydrates) which are known to contain more energy then all of the proven oil and gas reserves on the planet. All we need to do is figure out how to get at it...it sits on the sea bed, to depths of many meters."

In other words, we have the resources now--and vastly more in potential--if we would only stop refusing to exploit them. No silly scheme based on dilute energy sources (solar, wind, et al) is needed.

--Boris

[lawdude]

"...once it becomes economically viable, will make fossil fuels obsolete. "

You are dreaming, aren't you?

[Grampa Dave]

Most renewable energy pushers have inhaled too much and too often. This causes them to have these power fantasies re renewables.

[Wonder Warthog]

"If that is not the case, I apologize, but as of right now, vague assertions of "more than 100% electrically efficient" due to "high temp electrolyzers" don't mean much to me, and I suspect others as well. And I'll hang with you on as much thermodynamics/heat transfer/fluid mechanics/energy system analysis (technical and economic) as you care to discuss...."

Simple--the extra energy needed (over and above electric current) comes from thermal energy. Think of it as a combined catalytic cracker/electrolysis cell without the side reactions of a full catalytic cracking process. This example was intended to point out that Boris's assertion that "...electrolysis cells are 70% efficient, tops.." was baloney. In fact, even current technology electrolysis cells AT LOW LOADS are in the mid-90% efficency region, but that drops off as the load is increased--and probably DOES drop to Boris's 70% efficiency at full production rates.

I spent years working for a chemical company that produced megatons of chlorine per year by electrolysis, so I am "somewhat" familiar with industrial-scale electrolysis. It gets REAL interesting working around a 10 kiloamp DC electric field.

[Wonder Warthog]

"So: either very heavy or very expensive."

Prices "do" come down with mass production. If built as "one-off" assemblies, the typical family automobile would cost $100,000 (as do the limited production "super-cars" that are built that way).

[hinckley buzzard]

I remember reading this exact same editorial--thirty years ago.

I have no problem, myself, with fossil fuels, and I trust the market to take care of future demands. But I resent being patronized by shills for the oil industry.

The fact is, if Jimmuh Carter had taken the 60 billion dollars he pissed away on bogus "synfuel" projects, and put it into solarfarms in vast empty areas of the Southwest desert, California wouldn't have an energy problem now, and if they did they wouldn't need oil to solve it.

If the gov decided to do the proverbial "Apollo" program in the 70's, we could tell the Saudi's to shove it, today.

BTW, isn't James K. Glassman the einstein who told us a few years ago that the Dow was going straight to 36,000?

Real credible futurist, that boy.

[FreedomPoster]

I visited Alcoa's bauxite smelters while in college - don't take anything with a mag stripe with you, and if you hold out your keys, they align with the magnetic field. Similar stuff, verrrryy interesting.